Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Apache Kafka vs Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Apache Kafka
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
88
Ranking in other categories
Streaming Analytics (8th)
Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Message Queue (MQ) Software (13th)
 

Mindshare comparison

Apache Kafka and Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. Apache Kafka is designed for Streaming Analytics and holds a mindshare of 3.2%, up 2.0% compared to last year.
Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS, on the other hand, focuses on Message Queue (MQ) Software, holds 0.5% mindshare, up 0.3% since last year.
Streaming Analytics
Message Queue (MQ) Software
 

Featured Reviews

Snehasish Das - PeerSpot reviewer
Data streaming transforms real-time data movement with impressive scalability
I worked with Apache Kafka for customers in the financial industry and OTT platforms. They use Kafka particularly for data streaming. Companies offering movie and entertainment as a service, similar to Netflix, use Kafka Apache Kafka offers unique data streaming. It allows the use of data in…
AR
It's scalable and easy to use, and we have local support here in Tunisia
We have an application-presentation layer, and we use JBoss to communicate with the application layer. The interceptors use Active MQ.  JBoss is easy to use, and we have a good partner here in Tunisia to provide local support.  JBoss could add more automation. We have been using JBoss for five…

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Kafka can process messages in real-time, making it useful for applications that require near-instantaneous processing."
"The most valuable feature is that it can handle high volume."
"Apache Kafka is very fast and stable."
"The valuable features are the group community and support."
"Overall, I rate Apache Kafka as nine out of ten for its scalability and stability."
"Kafka is scalable to any degree we want, and it has several connectors available for integration in multiple languages, making it easier for integration."
"The stability is very nice. We currently manage 50 million events daily."
"I appreciate that Apache Kafka is fast and secure thanks to implementing it with AWS, allowing me to secure it on a high level."
"JBoss is easy to use, and we have a good partner here in Tunisia to provide local support."
 

Cons

"Kafka has some limitations in terms of queue management."
"I would like to see monitoring service tools."
"The solution can improve its cloud support."
"Apache Kafka has performance issues that cause it to lag."
"The third party is not very stable and sometimes you have problems with this component. There are some developments in newer versions and we're about to try them out, but I'm not sure if it closes the gap."
"For personal preferences, since we use Managed Kafka in AWS, I would appreciate having some kind of UI integrated into Apache Kafka for connecting to it because using code to connect it is basic, but we can use a UI."
"Kafka 2.0 has been released for over a month, and I wanted to try out the new features. However, the configuration is a little bit complicated: Kafka Broker, Kafka Manager, ZooKeeper Servers, etc."
"It’s a trial-and-error process with no one-size-fits-all solution. Issues may arise until it’s appropriately tuned."
"JBoss could add more automation."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Apache Kafka is open-source and can be used free of charge."
"Apache Kafka has an open-source pricing."
"Apache Kafka is an open-sourced solution. There are fees if you want the support, and I would recommend it for enterprises. There are annual subscriptions available."
"It is open source software."
"When starting to look at a distributed message system, look for a cloud solution first. It is an easier entry point than an on-premises hardware solution."
"The price for the enterprise version is quite high. For on-premise, there is an annual fee, which starts at 60,000 euros, but it is usually higher than 100,000 euros. The cost for a project including the subscription is usually between 100,000 to 200,000 euros. The cost also depends on the level of support. There are two different levels of support."
"Apache Kafka is an open-source solution."
"We use the free version."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Streaming Analytics solutions are best for your needs.
859,957 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
28%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Retailer
5%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What are the differences between Apache Kafka and IBM MQ?
Apache Kafka is open source and can be used for free. It has very good log management and has a way to store the data used for analytics. Apache Kafka is very good if you have a high number of user...
What do you like most about Apache Kafka?
Apache Kafka is an open-source solution that can be used for messaging or event processing.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Apache Kafka?
Its pricing is reasonable. It's not always about cost, but about meeting specific needs.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Uber, Netflix, Activision, Spotify, Slack, Pinterest
E*TRADE, CERN, CenturyLink, AECOM, Sabre Holdings
Find out what your peers are saying about Databricks, Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft and others in Streaming Analytics. Updated: June 2025.
859,957 professionals have used our research since 2012.